4. 
December 16TH, 1884. 
The second meeting was held in the Council Chamber. The 
attendance was very good, but rather smaller than usual owing to 
a grand concert in the adjoining large room. A Discussion on 
Darwinism was commenced by the Secretary reading the following, 
short plain and unbiassed account of the theory :— 
— DEVELOPMENT. — 
It is of the highest importance, before commencing a discussion, 
that we should understand clearly and exactly what we are to 
discuss. Itis especially so with respect to our subject to-night ; 
because, on no other point connected with science has there ever 
been such ignorance displayed and such nonsense written by the 
disputants on both sides. Many a man has spoken and written 
against Darwin without having ever read his books; many a so- 
called Darwinian has from his own point of view attacked the views 
of religious men without knowing at all what religion teaches that 
has any bearing on the subject. The adherents of Darwin are 
often more Darwinistic in their ideas than their master, rushing 
into extreme views, and adopting a style of argument that would 
never have been countenanced by him—verifying an old adage 
about the caution of angels and the temerity of other forms of 
existence, not angelic. And on the other hand the opponents of 
the great theorist have frequently, and with great ability, argued 
against what Darwin never advanced, or intended to advance. 
Darwin never taught that man was descended from a gorilla (as 
many people imagine he did) or from any of the present race of 
quadrumana. And Darwin was no atheist (as many people aftirm); 
he distinctly refers to the acts of the Creator in producing life on 
the earth. 
Again, we must, by way of caution, remember that Development 
is not a proved fact (as many Darwinians hold); it is only a theory, 
an apparently reasonable mode of accounting for certain phenomena 
in Nature; one which seems to clear away many otherwise inex- 
plicable difficulties ; one which certainly opens up grander views 
of God’s power and mode of working than man has ever before 
been able to experience. But for all ‘that—only ly a theory; nO more 
an ascertained fact than the existence of atoms. 
I know that Darwin’s disciples (I say again) have gone much 
further than he, who knew so much more than they, could go ; 
that one constantly refers to Development as ‘‘an established 
fact’ ; another affirms that it ought to be taught in schools as a 
scientific truth ; one puts it forth in as offensive a manner as he 
